Source – The Seattle Times
Editorial
Date – 17 Feb 2013
Website - seattletimes.com
Initiative 522 is billed as an issue of consumer choice. If passed, it may do more harm than good.
Consumers absolutely have a right to know what they are eating is safe, but Initiative 522’s purpose of singling out genetically engineered foods for labeling isn’t the answer to our health questions.
This session, the Legislature must decide between passing I-522 into law or sending it to the ballot. Lawmakers say a vote of the people is more likely. That is the wiser course.
The dialogue should center on science. And so far — there is no reliable evidence crops containing genetically modified organisms, commonly referred to as “GMO” foods, pose any risks.
Under I-522, labeling would apply to seeds and food products sold in the state — with the exception of restaurant entrees, medical meals, alcohol, meat and dairy. Common grocery items like cereal and snacks would be affected because they contain sugar beets, soybeans or corn. These are the most common genetically engineered crops in the U.S., but by the time they’re processed, studies conclude they’re identical to non-GMO products.
I-522 supporters are not convinced. They allege Washington’s agricultural trade economy is at risk because more than 60 countries worldwide require labeling of some genetically engineered food.
If this were a real threat, groups representing Washington farm commodities, which are sophisticated hands at international trade, and grocers would certainly join the fight.
They are not. Instead, many oppose a ballot initiative that serves up more unnecessary fears of “Frankenfood” than transparency.
Some American farmers started using GMO crops in 1996 as a way of increasing yields while reducing chemical use. Though controversial research is under way to develop genetically engineered salmon and wheat, both are years from entering the market.
Our food system has room for improvement, but here’s some frank talk: People already have the option of buying GMO-free foods from producers who farm organically or who choose to self-label. Organic farms in Washington are responding to the market’s demands.
Well-meaning consumers say they want more freedom of choice. With I-522, they may end up with less. Just look at European Union countries where producers are using higher-priced ingredients to avoid even the potential stigma of a mandatory GMO label.
Consider their experience a cautionary note for Washington voters.
“The dialogue should center on science. And so far — there is no reliable evidence crops containing genetically modified organisms, commonly referred to as “GMO” foods, pose any risks.”
This is the ongoing “Sound-Bite” and Myth perpetrated by the sadly out of date “Science” keeping the sadly lacking old Biotechnology in place. Beyond seeing whether it would do what the Corporations wanted, no publicly available tests, experiments or studies have escaped the “Proprietary Information” Catch-all.
The Nations that require Labeling are now up to 64. It’s OUR Money-It’s OUR Choice. We shouldn’t have to be spending time or money on this. If it’s all THAT GOOD, shout it from the rooftops. The ongoing and escalating efforts to NOT do that, is doing more to foster Consumer AND Farmer suspicions than the whole of the Anti-GMO Activism. Way to go folks.
I concur. This “editorial” is about straight copied and pasted from Monsanto.
I’m sure the The Seattle Times editorial board, which wrote it, will probably disagree with you.
Of course they will, who in their right mind, “bites the hand that feeds them”? The bottom line…It’s MY Money-MY Choice and there exists NO logical reason to preclude Labeling in the US, when it’s already done in 64 other nations…period. However Biotech “shakes out” this shouldn’t have even been an issue, if a certain Campaign Promise made in 2007 had been kept.
Also sure it’s a pretty safe assumption that the editorial board writers of The Seattle Times will disagree with your accusation that they are susceptible to having their credibility bought and paid for in this matter or any other… if you or anyone does believe that, then bring it up with them directly.
Actually, a number of people I’ve known and know have done exactly that…and are now banned from posting at the Seattle Times Site. I give this Site kudos for remaining tolerant of ideas that are not always in favor with it’s Editorial Position. It is important to know I’m NOT against Biotech, but feel it needs to re-explore it’s “Science” in light of new developments, this article being but one example of new emerging understanding of Cellular Function: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-rna-dna-loop-space.html. I feel if this would be done, all of these issues would be moot, as the new Science is pointing the way to Quantum Design and Programming WITHIN the Cell, rather than simply splicing “foreign” DNA material. IT could do everything the Biotech Ag Industry Wants, without all of the fallout. Isn’t that pretty much good for everybody?
what this media concealment actually accomplishes is enabling the dissemination of significant government falsehoods without challenge, and permitting the continuation of government deceit and even illegality.
GMO = ROUNDUP IN OUR FOOD
Any person worth their weight, would look into all the medical reports linking food like stuff with illness and the illness going away when the food like stuff is removed from the diet and replaced with organic, non-gmo, old fashion real food.
Over 60 countries “BAN” gmo food like stuff. The required labeling only applies to food imported from GMO laden countries like the USA and the label reads “WARNING THIS FOOD IS IMPORTED FROM THE USA AND MAY CONTAIN GMO’S”. Otherwise there is no label necessary.
The story is told that GMOs will feed the world. This is proving everyday to not be true. The plants are no bigger and actually produce less due to the soil being leached of nutrition and poisoned from over exposure to roundup and pesticide, of which more is used than ever before.
“Well meaning consumers”? I can’t even begin to understand the disconnect here. This editorial has more holes in it than swiss cheese. I say we ban gmos altogether, but for now I will accept labeling them. I have already stopped buying gmo food like stuff. I just want everyone to know what I know so if we have to label it, so be it.